![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Justice and consequence
There is no justice, only consequences for you actions.
Every choice you make has it's consequence, every action it's price.
Going to prison for a crime isn't justice, it's just a consequence of getting caught.
The laws exist from a consensus of right and wrong. Many are simply to provide a framework, a baseline of assumptions.
If you operate within the framework, and so does everyone else, then we have a society that works. Conformity is requisite, not because of 'Justice' but because otherwise society breaks apart.
Every choice you make has it's consequence, every action it's price.
Going to prison for a crime isn't justice, it's just a consequence of getting caught.
The laws exist from a consensus of right and wrong. Many are simply to provide a framework, a baseline of assumptions.
If you operate within the framework, and so does everyone else, then we have a society that works. Conformity is requisite, not because of 'Justice' but because otherwise society breaks apart.
no subject
Does this mean justice isn't a valid idea?
A different question entirely...
no subject
It's simply a question of one person being able to object to your actions, and taking action to prevent future recurrences.
It may be justice of a sort to send someone to prison (or even execute them) for murder. But I think that it's more the case that enough people are 'opposed' to murder, that it becomes possible to prevent them.
I think that in the main, people don't commit murder because they believe that it's wrong, rather than because they fear justice.
We remove the murderer from society to prevent re-occurance, and as a deterrent to others.
no subject
Hmm - I'm pondering this, once I've worked a couple of things out you'll get a proper reply....
no subject
I suggest this case as a practice of Justice, the spirit of the law over the letter of the law.
A man is accused of theft. There appears to be inconvertible evidence of theft. The man was suffering from a mental disorder. Doctors suggest the man is now on a dosage that will prevent reoccurance of the aberrant behaviour.
The letter of the law would be to convict him as guilty. Justice would be set to record the fact that the man as an individual did commit a crime but not to charge him guilty. The man is different to the criminal and will behave in a non criminal manner. So why punish him?
The function of the court should be to modify behaviour, if the man has already achieved this then the court should not pass judgement.
no subject
If someone doesn't have the mental capacity to intend to the act that they are doing/know that the act is wrong then this is a defence to the charge.
Where someone is so mentally ill as to be unfit to stand trial, a trial of the facts is held - if on the facts it looks like the individual has done the deed, then he is placed under the care of an appropriate Mental Health team/hospital.
Where someone has mental health problems but does have the mental capacity to know when he's doing something that's wrong, then it's quite right that he's convicted of the crime and the mental illness it taken into account purely in mitigation when considering an appropriate sentence.
And using your example - theft is quite a hard thing to prove, since you must show that the item was taken with the intention of permanently depriving its owner of it. Someone who is severely mentally ill and who 'borrows' things probably won't have taken them with the intention of permanently depriving their owners of the items.
no subject
For myself the comment was more driven towards the outcome of the 'case'. If it could be shown to the courts satisfaction that a defendant will not re-commit the crime for which they are accused then should the court pass judgement?
The judgement will act to deprive the defendant of their liberty/property (custodial sentence/fine) and yet this person is not a criminal. I am concerned with the psychological state of defendants and their future actions. If a person has entered into a state of redemption than there is no need to punish a future self for their past actions.
Obviously this statement exists in a philosophical context and the phrase 'to the courts satisfaction' requires maguffin technology to be legally binding.
no subject
Do we imprison someone to punish them, or do we do it to make an example and to remove them from being 'on the street'.
Is there really something that a person can do that cannot be forgiven?
no subject
no subject
it's all well and good someone being forgiven by law, but if the family of those killed do not forgive the killer, is that person forgiven?
If the killer shows no remorse, how can they be forgiven anything. with no remorse they do not believe the action to be wrong.
no subject